Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

This thread arose due to a clear need to initiate personal and ad hominem attacks on our President (besides, I am always drawn to defend the rhetorical underdog). Well, you can stop hijacking my threads, boys: and dump all your venom, right here!

For once, I am going to have to agree with Mike Sigman. People are getting just too personal, with the attacks on our President. The many rude--and false--comments about his (untested) IQ oversimplify a basically simple man. In effect, you misunderestimate him, the Decider-in-Chief.

You all claim that it was sheer stupidity that sent us into Iraq. OK, granted, it wasn't the greatest idea off the shelf: but let's face it...he didn't Decide to go to war, all by his lonesome. He had lots of help, from Congress to all those misguided souls who voted for him. Where are the piles of blame to be laid at THEIR feet?

Did Bush tell the news stations to start acting like clones of FoxNews? No. Did he TELL Dan Rather to start acting like a soldier, instead of a journalist? In reality, the corporate news media is as much to blame, as the (Unitary) Executive. It seems kind of petty to start getting in W's face, when a whole lot of other people were in on it, cheering the war on our airwaves.

And what about that whole Abu Ghraib/Gitmo mess? No one knows if W approved of it, or not. So, where's the moral condemnation of Rumsfeld, whom we KNOW approved of torture? Yes, true: I can almost hear you respond, "Hey, waitaminute! Bush said we "don't do torture."

OK, you have me there. Sure, Bush is guilty of mendacity: but look at it from his perspective. A lot of cool guys you respect around you are telling you that the gloves are off, we can act outside the Geneva Conventions now. So, you do the same thing you always did, as CEO...you let them all have a long leash, do whatever they pleased, and only listened to a few, trusted advisors.

Is that your fault that some of the boys got a little carried away (over, and over again?)

You see, regarding torture: W's in a quagmire. He set up these extra-judicial laws to try an end-run around international law, in hopes that he could capture the baddies within his term, and be the President Boy Hero of his time. Now, he has to play cover-up: and one thing leads to another...the next thing you know, W's waking up wondering how he's the owner of dozens of secret extrajudical gulags in Asia! How did it all come to this!!!

Really, is it HIS fault that he took the views of the writers of "24" a little too much to heart??

Let's be honest...the vast majority of American's have a coginitive disconnect in relation to the war. They think of it as the "Pentagon's" war, which, operationally, I suppose it is, even tho we're all funding it, and thus culpable. The only way that this war will really hit home (and finally end) is when we institute a draft. So please, enough of all your crying that it's all Bush's fault, etc. He's just a poor figurehead hanging onto whatever ideological furniture that's bolted onto the floor, as his Ship of State sinks sadly into the miasmic swamp of historic folly. Is HE really to blame, for acting like any other politican would, in his place?

And a lot of other evils attributed to him, weren't even invented by him! Bush didn't invent extroadinary rendition...Clinton did. Bush didn't invent signing statements (even tho he has used them as end-runs around bills he doesn't like...and used them, more than all the other Presidents combined). And, did Bush invent placing hostile corporate figures in Cabinet positions to gut agencies like the EPA, the Dept of Agriculture, etc? No, Cabinet position appointments have ALWAYS been political chess pieces.

So spread the blame around where it belongs. Bush might represent a great mismanagement of office, but he is only one man.

To call him stupid or to belittle him, to mock our President, is to forget how dangerous and destructive these people really are.

I know Neil is being a little facetious, but these are very valid points. I am constantly trying to get people to really learn about history. Not the crap they teach you in school, but the history that is available with just a bit of extra effort.

Throughout history people have used the government to legitimize their actions. It used to be priests and divine right, now it is democracy and the will of the people. Policies have been implemented that appeal to the common man's emotions, but actually serve only a select group at his expense.

Freedom isn't free. I hear this all the time, but most of the people who repeat this phrase don't know what the cost of freedom is. It is eternal vigilance, never trusting government, never letting gov't exceed its proper limitations.

The Constitution has been abused almost since it was ratified. We criticize Bush for behavior that we consider heroic from FDR or Lincoln. This problem is much greater than one man. Do you honestly think replacing him with Hillary is going to matter? Or Obama? Or Giuliani? Or Romney? Or Fred Thompson?

They are all collectivists, and collectivism equals slavery. It is time to wake up.

If we support these people, if we fail to exercise our rights, if we continue to be poor stewards of our gov't, we have no one to blame, but ourselves.

-Michael
"Through aiki we can feel the mind of the enemy who comes to attack and are thus able to respond immediately." - M. Mochizuki

I'll donate $20 to your favorite charity Neil if you, Neil Mick, can stop writing about Bush & Co for 30 days. No posts about Bush, Cheney, the Iraq war, the war on terror, gitmo, etc., anything that has anything to do with the present administration or how you think Bush is 'baaaaad'.

Hell, I'll even do $30 - a dollar a day.

C'mon, Neil... Can you do it? $30 to whatever org. you want.... even 'moveon.org'... Do you have other things to do??

I'll donate $20 to your favorite charity Neil if you, Neil Mick, can stop writing about Bush & Co for 30 days. No posts about Bush, Cheney, the Iraq war, the war on terror, gitmo, etc., anything that has anything to do with the present administration or how you think Bush is 'baaaaad'.

I'm not quite sure why I'm your anti-Bushie bugaboo, John. Just take a gander at my "Sick puppies" thread...I barely even mention W, whereas several other poster's are engaging in a heated anti-Bush fest.

OK, I was being a little facetious, but really...he IS only one man. All these personality attacks are misleading and oversimplify a deep, deep problem we have in the US gov't and media.

Quote:

Hell, I'll even do $30 - a dollar a day.

C'mon, Neil... Can you do it? $30 to whatever org. you want.... even 'moveon.org'... Do you have other things to do??

Make it $50, donate it to aiki-extensions (which, BTW, will also get you a years' membership), and you're on!

Freedom isn't free. I hear this all the time, but most of the people who repeat this phrase don't know what the cost of freedom is. It is eternal vigilance, never trusting government, never letting gov't exceed its proper limitations.

The Constitution has been abused almost since it was ratified. We criticize Bush for behavior that we consider heroic from FDR or Lincoln. This problem is much greater than one man. Do you honestly think replacing him with Hillary is going to matter? Or Obama? Or Giuliani? Or Romney? Or Fred Thompson?

If we support these people, if we fail to exercise our rights, if we continue to be poor stewards of our gov't, we have no one to blame, but ourselves.

Exactly. If this war were going well: we wouldn't be hearing all the petty, personal remarks about W...he'd be "our hero." The atrocities at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo would be dismissed as necessary costs to achieve the goals of the war on terror.

So long as we win, it seems: it's all OK to violate any laws we deem as obstacles. What's a minor charge of collective punishment in comparison to the "winner of the War on Terror?" And all those secret rendition flights, loss of civil liberties, etc...they'd all be excused as "needed tools" to "win the war."

If only we were winning in Iraq.

How easy it is to put aside our societal principles when we're on the winning team!

Hmmmm...You got a deal... starting now - "No posts about Bush, Cheney, the Iraq war, the war on terror, gitmo, etc., anything that has anything to do with the present administration or how you think Bush is 'baaaaad'."

Hmmmm...You got a deal... starting now - "No posts about Bush, Cheney, the Iraq war, the war on terror, gitmo, etc., anything that has anything to do with the present administration or how you think Bush is 'baaaaad'."

Register? For aiki-extensions? Meaning you want me to pay 1st? Well, mama didn't raise me for a fool, either. Original bet was you to desist for 30 days & then I would donate. What if you fail? You gonna' provide em with a pro-rated refund?

By the way, I just received an "infraction warning" from Jun re my offer of a donation, saying that I was attacking you rather than the post. (I wonder have you ever gotten one?) Given that I am at risk for being banned or something for offering this donation, said donation may be retracted until I consider this forum further.

Register? For aiki-extensions? Meaning you want me to pay 1st? Well, mama didn't raise me for a fool, either. Original bet was you to desist for 30 days & then I would donate. What if you fail? You gonna' provide em with a pro-rated refund?

If I fail, then I would refund you your money.

The reason I insist on an "in advance" payment is that it would be too easy for you to forget. Actually, had you gone through with it, I'd likely not post for 30 days at all. So, you'd be rid of me for 30 glorious, Neil-free-forum-post days.

Now, how cool is that?

Quote:

By the way, I just received an "infraction warning" from Jun re my offer of a donation, saying that I was attacking you rather than the post.

He did?? I will never understand Jun's warning-infractions. It's OK to outright call ppl racists and chemically dependent here, but it's NOT OK to offer donations to charity if I'd stop doing something. Weird.

Quote:

(I wonder have you ever gotten one?)

Yes, I did. Two, actually. The second was based on a misreading of a post. It so put me off that I stopped posting for six months (altho I did promise not to post here again. I let myself down on that score. Note to self: reinstate my AW membership)

Quote:

Given that I am at risk for being banned or something for offering this donation, said donation may be retracted until I consider this forum further.

It only takes a second to look at the body-count of my sig, and to realize that, yes: these men ARE dangerous...no personal attacks or emotional appeals, here, sorry (nor even a real need for them. The Administration's record speaks for itself).

But hey! You're quite free to report this thread, and we can leave it up to Jun, as to whether or not this constitutes an ad hominem attack. I'm perfectly happy with whatever he decides...far more, than any judgements YOU'RE likely to proffer.

Neil Mick wrote:
To call him stupid or to belittle him, to mock our President, is to forget how dangerous and destructive these people really are.

"These people," do not =George Bush alone, which is the core thesis of this thread.

Since "not=George Bush alone" means including George Bush, I made no misrepresentation, thanks.

Quote:

It only takes a second to look at the body-count of my sig, and to realize that, yes: these men ARE dangerous...no personal attacks or emotional appeals, here, sorry (nor even a real need for them. The Administration's record speaks for itself).

Your "figures" have been openly questioned in the past. They're from the same sorts of people that say George Bush is an alcoholic (hope you caught the humour in my "chemical addiction" remarks toward people who were accusing George Bush of a form of chemical addiction). I.e., you're stating an opinion as fact and using it to smear Bush.... again. Ergo, ipso facto et in hoc signo vinces, it is not a "defence" of Bush at all, it's an ad hominem. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Since "not=George Bush alone" means including George Bush, I made no misrepresentation, thanks.

Sorry, but, yes, you did. An ad hominem implies a personal attack. Claiming that Bush is part of a group of dangerous men with accompanying documentation is hardly an ad hominem.

Not that I'd expect you to acknowledge the difference, but one can hope...

Quote:

Your "figures" have been openly questioned in the past.

By you, and only you. And so what if they did?? What RELEVANCE does this have to do with determining an ad hominem??

Questioning the validity of one's figures does not = determining the nature of an ad hominem

Quote:

They're from the same sorts of people that say George Bush is an alcoholic

So, let me get this weird, twisto logic straight:

1. "A" makes an ad hominem attack;

(example: "A" says, "George Bush is a heartless killer, little better than Charles Manson or Hitler, for carelessly ignoring the over 1 million people murdered as part of his idiotic, ideologically-driven policies.")

2. Anyone who uses the same documentation as user,

(Example: "B" says that over a million people died from the Administration's policies, making them very dangeous)

is ALSO guilty of using ad hominems...

Nope, it's just as twisto as when I started.

Quote:

(hope you caught the humour in my "chemical addiction" remarks toward people who were accusing George Bush of a form of chemical addiction).

Yah, very "funny:" until you started including ME (a person not participating in your discussion) in your "humor."

Quote:

I.e., you're stating an opinion as fact and using it to smear Bush.... again.

Even if only 20,000 people died in Iraq, Mike: that, in my book, is "dangerous." A pity you feel differently.

This discussion is getting tiresome, and rehashing old debates. I am not really interested in debating the nature of ad hominems with someone who just used them so effectively to shut down my last thread.

If you have something of value to add here (relevant to the discussion), please feel free to post. Otherwise, I think I'll pass on further discussion attempts to re-invent the wheel.

Sorry, but, yes, you did. An ad hominem implies a personal attack. Claiming that Bush is part of a group of dangerous men with accompanying documentation is hardly an ad hominem.

It's a reference to the person(al), Neil. You're implying (and I mean that in the strict construction of logic and grammar) that Bush is *not only* stupid *but also* dangerous. Therefore, your opening comments are not a defense of Bush, but an attack.

Quote:

This discussion is getting tiresome, and rehashing old debates.

Translation: "Uh oh... the thin facade of "defence of Bush" isn't holding up, no matter how dumb I thought the readers were".

It's a reference to the person(al), Neil. You're implying (and I mean that in the strict construction of logic and grammar) that Bush is *not only* stupid *but also* dangerous. Therefore, your opening comments are not a defense of Bush, but an attack.

Implication does not = Inferral. YOU inferred: I implied no such thing, regarding his stupidity. In point of fact, I happen to agree with you that there is no way to measure Bush's intelligence, as he never published his IQ ratings. Ergo, questioning his IQ IS an ad hominem.

Quote:

Translation: "Uh oh... the thin facade of "defence of Bush" isn't holding up, no matter how dumb I thought the readers were".

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Translate it any way you like, Mike: but I think it's time to move away from old arguments that go nowhere.

Exactly. And I thought your attempt use a disingenuously-worded thread to do exactly the same "old arguments" was a waste of time.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Even if the last sentence was an attack on Bush, he still defended (or at least shifted attacks to others) him in most of the rest of the post. Considering that Niel was the author, you should be happy.

"There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self." - Aldous Huxley

You did imply (suggest) and someone else inferred (concluded) although unsurprisingly his conclusion do not stand up to examination.

What are you 'on' David? As you and I have been (inferred)publicly 'outed', on the now defunct thread, as being chemically dependant, I was curious as to which ones you use to make your views so deluded

Seriously though, I can't post anything on the topic here as I have to go and meet my candyman

regards,

Mark
p.s. Sorry Neil, not trying to hijack your thread, I just find myself at a loss when asked to write in the defence of GWB, perhaps if I switch my meds?

- although I do admit to consuming a fair bit of a liquid with chemical formular H20 - it's widely believed to distort viewpoints almost as much as inhaling that dreadful stuff you have down in Devon (I think it's called fresh air)

I understand that the same delusions can be caused by what is called FND (Fox News Deficiency)

I also like the comment

"You guys need to realize how you look to any person with a modicum of reason and self-control."

- although quite how the author of this little gem would know how anyone looks to a person with a modicum of reason and self-control is unclear.

Even if the last sentence was an attack on Bush, he still defended (or at least shifted attacks to others) him in most of the rest of the post. Considering that Niel was the author, you should be happy.

Oh, I dunno... look at these phrases and see if you really see a defense of Bush:

his (untested) IQ oversimplify a basically simple man.

You all claim that it was sheer stupidity that sent us into Iraq. OK, granted, it wasn't the greatest idea off the shelf:

Sure, Bush is guilty of mendacity

He set up these extra-judicial laws to try an end-run around international law

he's the owner of dozens of secret extrajudical gulags in Asia

didn't invent signing statements (even tho he has used them as end-runs around bills he doesn't like

Neil likes to assert things like the above and then drag you into a protracted discussion.... even though he's dimly aware that the initial statements he makes aren't true. It's this willingness to lay out what he knows to be questionable as the "truth" that leads me over and over back to my comments about dishonesty.

For instance, grabbing one of the above, "signing statements" are used to indicate that a new law does not override existing law's exception. As an example, it is illegal to open First Class mail and one of the laws Bush signed reinforced that idea. However, there are already (and have been, for many years) exceptions to that law in certain cases (criminal warrants, national emergencies, etc.). A "signing statement" indicating that those exceptions (which Bush didnt originate) still exist would be an example of what a signing statement does. It says that the new law is understood not to quash existing legally-accepted exceptions.

Now that's pretty easy to find out, the information on signing statements. When someone disingenuously acts like a signing statement is some illegal or underhanded mechanism simply to use as a "gotcha", you're talking about a basically dishonest person.

Neil likes to assert things like the above and then drag you into a protracted discussion.... even though he's dimly aware that the initial statements he makes aren't true.

Mike likes to pretend that everything on his ideological side of the world is proceeding according to plan..even if that plan is shaping up to look increasingly like the itinerary on the Titanic...

Quote:

For instance, grabbing one of the above, "signing statements" are used to indicate that a new law does not override existing law's exception.

Excellent...yes, let's examine signing statements.

Quote:

As an example, it is illegal to open First Class mail and one of the laws Bush signed reinforced that idea. However, there are already (and have been, for many years) exceptions to that law in certain cases (criminal warrants, national emergencies, etc.). A "signing statement" indicating that those exceptions (which Bush didnt originate) still exist would be an example of what a signing statement does. It says that the new law is understood not to quash existing legally-accepted exceptions.

Now, gentle reader: if you're like me, and someone makes a claim that you KNOW to be false...what do you do? You're sitting in front of a computer...you COULD google it...or, you could simply attack the character of the person making said claims.

There is an ongoing controversy concerning the extensive use of signing statements to modify the meaning of laws by President George W. Bush. In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".

George W. Bush's use of signing statements is controversial, both for the number of times employed (estimated at over 750 opinions) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto although the Supreme Court has already held one line item veto bill to be an unconstitutional delegation of power in Clinton v. City of New York.

Previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. George W. Bush's 130 signing statements contain at least 1,100 challenges. In the words of a New York Times commentary:

And none have used it so clearly to make the president the interpreter of a law's intent, instead of Congress, and the arbiter of constitutionality, instead of the courts.

Others, however, have defended the use of presidential signing statements. The United States Department of Justice says that

Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "
The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.

Bush's expansive claims of the power to bypass laws have provoked increased grumbling in Congress. Members of both parties have pointed out that the Constitution gives the legislative branch the power to write the laws and the executive branch the duty to ''faithfully execute" them.

Several senators have proposed bills to bring the warrantless surveillance program under the law. One Democrat, Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, has gone so far as to propose censuring Bush, saying he has broken the wiretapping law.

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the issuance of presidential signing
statements that claim the authority or state the intention to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a law the President has signed, or to interpret such a law in a manner inconsistent with the
clear intent of Congress;

What is new and troubling is the extraordinary frequency with which President Bush has used these statements, and the unorthodox way he uses them. The recent spate of presidential signing statements constitutes a threat to our country's system of checks and balances as surely as the Bush administration actions that the Hamdan ruling struck down did.

Since he took office, Bush has used this device to object to more than 500 provisions in more than 100 pieces of legislation--nearly as many as the 575 signing statements issued by all of his predecessors combined. In these statements, the president often has claimed that the new laws violate the Constitution and signaled his intention not to enforce certain provisions, despite having signed them into law.

These statements might be helpful in understanding complex legislation, even if their use were prompted by opportunistic motives. But it is one thing to refer to a signing statement to get some sense of what a law is about, and quite another to treat the statement as though it defines the president's responsibility under law, serving as an explicit order to everyone working in the executive branch.

President Bush dishonors traditions in his aggressive use of signing statements as one way among many to circumvent the congressional and judicial checks built into the Constitution.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

Now that's pretty easy to find out, the information on signing statements.